To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this object, paste this HTML in website

American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security

3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
considerations of major importance to
our welfare. Like any person unsure of
his convictions, we were timid and
reticent in our approach to problems of
foreign relations. In short, we were
bewildered, and therefore we improvised
from day to day.
It is conceivable that, as the leading
industrial Nation, we might have
embarked upon a career of imperialism
designed to control the world by force.
Germany in fact attempted this solution.
But such a policy is alien to all our
history and to all our instincts. This
policy is so at variance with our very nature
that I do not think it could have been
followed with success then, nor do I think
it can be followed now. On the other
hand I think a system of collective
security is not only the best hope for
success, but it is also the only one consistent
with our political and moral standards
of conduct. The principal question that
remains in my mind is whether or not
we are sufficiently convinced of the
necessity of collective security to be willing
to make the necessary economic and
psychological adjustments.
Many people have assumed that
because the House of Representatives, the
Senate, and the President have declared
for collective security, the job is done.
But the establishing of order and the
making of peace does not consist merely
of a solemn declaration or a well-drafted
constitution. The making of peace is a
continuing process that must go on from
day to day, from year to year, so long as
our civilization shall last. Our participation
in this process is not just the signing
of a charter with a big read seal. It is a
daily task, a positive participation in all
the details and decisions which together
constitute a living and growing policy.
What an empty shell the Dumbarton
Oaks proposals will be, even if complete
agreement is reached at San Francisco,
if at the same time, or in the near future,
we are unable to agree upon such things
as exchange and monetary matters, aviation,
the free flow of information, trade
barriers, cartels, armaments, and oil,
and, I may add, a simple treaty with
Mexico on the division of the waters of
the Colorado River. Surely we all know
by this time that political solidarity in
this suffering world is dependent, in the
final analysis, upon economic stability.
I do not mean that all of these
problems must be solved immediately, and at
once, to the satisfaction of all. I do
think it very important that the
American people, and all people, recognize that
these matters are inherently involved in
any system of mutual security; and that
adjustments and temporary sacrifices
must be made. They should be told that
the price of peace is high. How high it is,
is difficult to estimate; but I am confident
that it will not be nearly as high as the
price of war. However, unless we are,
prepared to make these payments for
peace we might as well recognize now the
futility of Dumbarton Oaks or San
Francisco.
I said temporary sacrifices, for I am
convinced that because of our enormous
power to produce wealth of all kinds,
given a reasonable length of time, in
which we are free from the threat of war,
or war itself, we can more than repay
ourselves for any reasonable concessions
we may make in the way of loans, tariffs,
or outright relief. There are vast areas
of the world, with untold wealth, that
can be developed if we can be reasonably
sure of peace. We can be sure that as the
areas are developed, we shall share with
the rest of the world in the benefits of
these developments. So I repeat that our
sacrifices will be temporary if we can
establish and maintain peace.
In addition to the material costs of
peace there are other adjustments which
must be made and which may prove more
painful to many of us than the payment
of gold. We must give up some of our
most cherished prejudices if we are to
work in harmony with other peoples. No
plan on earth can assure us of anything
resembling a peaceful future unless,
supporting it, are the positive forces of
public opinion. The beliefs and convictions
of the people must be in accord with our
policy or it cannot be definite and settled.
Among the prejudices which we must
examine, I need mention only a few to
illustrate my point. Foremost among
them is the anti-British already referred
to. I shall not go further into that
except to urge most serious consideration
as to whether we desire to see the power
and influence of the British people
destroyed. Is it not true that in assisting
Britain and the Commonwealth of
Nations, we were in fact preserving friends
who are, in a very real sense, indispensable
to our own welfare and the welfare
of democratic, freedom-loving
peoples everywhere? In this troubled
and violent world is it not true that we
would feel quite alone in the world if
the British Commonwealth of Nations
had been subjugated by the tyranny of
the Nazis, and its resources directed
against us? If that be true, then whose
chestnuts did we pull out of the fire?
Another powerful prejudice which has
affected our policy, and is vital to our
future, is our fear of Russia and
communism. Until the revolution in Russia,
we had always been on friendly terms
with that Nation. We had never fought
her. We made one very profitable deal
with her when we bought Alaska for
$7,200,000. and promptly extracted more
than $400,000,000 in gold from its
mountains. I should say that even the
Tribune should approve of that kind of
a deal. Yet, after the revolution was
established by Lenin, we refused to
recognize Russia until 1933, the last of
the major nations to do so. Moreover,
we sent two armed expeditions against
her without provocation. When one
recalls the birth of our own Nation—
that in 1776 our forefathers were
regarded as being quite as radical, by the
rest of the world, as Lenin was in 1920—
is it not strange that we should be so
harsh toward Russia? Since we have
been the most successful revolutionary
people in history, why are we so critical
of others who follow our example?
Surely it cannot be because we approved
of Czarist Russia with its illiteracy and
abject, grinding poverty. As I read
history, the Russian experiment in
socialism is scarcely more radical, under
modern conditions, than the Declaration
of Independence was in the days of
George III.
I realize that it is not popular even
to compare Russia with ourselves, and
yet it is necessary to get our ideas
straight. When I hear the unbridled
and intemperate attacks upon Russia by
some of our own people, I cannot help
but be troubled. If these people, who
profess such profound love and faith for
our American system, are sincere in this
faith, then why are they so afraid of
Russia? I have a feeling that the real
reason for their hate and distrust is
their lack of faith in our own system.
I believe firmly in the superiority of
our democratic capitalistic system, and
I desire to preserve it. But we should
remember that capitalism is not divine
and inviolable. It was not handed down
to us by the Almighty; and to question
it, or test it, is neither sacrilegious nor
treasonable. We have capitalism, and
we can defend it, because it has by all
standards of decency provided better
conditions for more people than any
other system on earth. It is of value to
us, and is defensible, only so long as it
maintains that record.
The highly emotional attacks upon
communism and Russia by some of our
public orators is an indication of the
weakness of their faith in our system.
We must demonstrate the superiority of
individual initiative under capitalism by
our results, by the provision of a superior
way of life, not by the violence of our
oratory.
Russia is a great and powerful nation.
She can become either a good friend and
customer, exerting her influence for
peace and stability, or she can become an
enemy using every opportunity to thwart
us. The Russia of today is a product of
a history less fortunate than ours. I do
not believe the Soviets desire to
domi¬nate the world as the Germans do. They
have given no evidence that they believe
they are supermen. Russia, like
America, is a nation of many races, and I
can see no real reason why we cannot get
along peaceably.
If this is sound reasoning, then we
should make up our minds as to our basic
attitude and stop the irritating and
confusing practice of condemnation on the
one hand and praise on the other. Our
policy should be one of respect and
consideration for a valiant Ally in peace as
well as in war, at least until some
compelling reason to alter our views
intervenes.
Another myth that confuses our
attitude toward the other nations is the
often repeated statement that "we have always
been a Santa Claus to the world." The
more selfish among us call us "Uncle
Sap." Thft implication from these
statements is that we are soft-headed,
starry- eyed idealists who know nothing of the
realities of this hard-fisted world. It
would take too much time to explore
fully this thoroughly false prejudice.
Its plausibility and the evil of it arise
from the confusion of two different ideas.
The idea of charity, in regard to which
we have been and should continue to be

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
considerations of major importance to
our welfare. Like any person unsure of
his convictions, we were timid and
reticent in our approach to problems of
foreign relations. In short, we were
bewildered, and therefore we improvised
from day to day.
It is conceivable that, as the leading
industrial Nation, we might have
embarked upon a career of imperialism
designed to control the world by force.
Germany in fact attempted this solution.
But such a policy is alien to all our
history and to all our instincts. This
policy is so at variance with our very nature
that I do not think it could have been
followed with success then, nor do I think
it can be followed now. On the other
hand I think a system of collective
security is not only the best hope for
success, but it is also the only one consistent
with our political and moral standards
of conduct. The principal question that
remains in my mind is whether or not
we are sufficiently convinced of the
necessity of collective security to be willing
to make the necessary economic and
psychological adjustments.
Many people have assumed that
because the House of Representatives, the
Senate, and the President have declared
for collective security, the job is done.
But the establishing of order and the
making of peace does not consist merely
of a solemn declaration or a well-drafted
constitution. The making of peace is a
continuing process that must go on from
day to day, from year to year, so long as
our civilization shall last. Our participation
in this process is not just the signing
of a charter with a big read seal. It is a
daily task, a positive participation in all
the details and decisions which together
constitute a living and growing policy.
What an empty shell the Dumbarton
Oaks proposals will be, even if complete
agreement is reached at San Francisco,
if at the same time, or in the near future,
we are unable to agree upon such things
as exchange and monetary matters, aviation,
the free flow of information, trade
barriers, cartels, armaments, and oil,
and, I may add, a simple treaty with
Mexico on the division of the waters of
the Colorado River. Surely we all know
by this time that political solidarity in
this suffering world is dependent, in the
final analysis, upon economic stability.
I do not mean that all of these
problems must be solved immediately, and at
once, to the satisfaction of all. I do
think it very important that the
American people, and all people, recognize that
these matters are inherently involved in
any system of mutual security; and that
adjustments and temporary sacrifices
must be made. They should be told that
the price of peace is high. How high it is,
is difficult to estimate; but I am confident
that it will not be nearly as high as the
price of war. However, unless we are,
prepared to make these payments for
peace we might as well recognize now the
futility of Dumbarton Oaks or San
Francisco.
I said temporary sacrifices, for I am
convinced that because of our enormous
power to produce wealth of all kinds,
given a reasonable length of time, in
which we are free from the threat of war,
or war itself, we can more than repay
ourselves for any reasonable concessions
we may make in the way of loans, tariffs,
or outright relief. There are vast areas
of the world, with untold wealth, that
can be developed if we can be reasonably
sure of peace. We can be sure that as the
areas are developed, we shall share with
the rest of the world in the benefits of
these developments. So I repeat that our
sacrifices will be temporary if we can
establish and maintain peace.
In addition to the material costs of
peace there are other adjustments which
must be made and which may prove more
painful to many of us than the payment
of gold. We must give up some of our
most cherished prejudices if we are to
work in harmony with other peoples. No
plan on earth can assure us of anything
resembling a peaceful future unless,
supporting it, are the positive forces of
public opinion. The beliefs and convictions
of the people must be in accord with our
policy or it cannot be definite and settled.
Among the prejudices which we must
examine, I need mention only a few to
illustrate my point. Foremost among
them is the anti-British already referred
to. I shall not go further into that
except to urge most serious consideration
as to whether we desire to see the power
and influence of the British people
destroyed. Is it not true that in assisting
Britain and the Commonwealth of
Nations, we were in fact preserving friends
who are, in a very real sense, indispensable
to our own welfare and the welfare
of democratic, freedom-loving
peoples everywhere? In this troubled
and violent world is it not true that we
would feel quite alone in the world if
the British Commonwealth of Nations
had been subjugated by the tyranny of
the Nazis, and its resources directed
against us? If that be true, then whose
chestnuts did we pull out of the fire?
Another powerful prejudice which has
affected our policy, and is vital to our
future, is our fear of Russia and
communism. Until the revolution in Russia,
we had always been on friendly terms
with that Nation. We had never fought
her. We made one very profitable deal
with her when we bought Alaska for
$7,200,000. and promptly extracted more
than $400,000,000 in gold from its
mountains. I should say that even the
Tribune should approve of that kind of
a deal. Yet, after the revolution was
established by Lenin, we refused to
recognize Russia until 1933, the last of
the major nations to do so. Moreover,
we sent two armed expeditions against
her without provocation. When one
recalls the birth of our own Nation—
that in 1776 our forefathers were
regarded as being quite as radical, by the
rest of the world, as Lenin was in 1920—
is it not strange that we should be so
harsh toward Russia? Since we have
been the most successful revolutionary
people in history, why are we so critical
of others who follow our example?
Surely it cannot be because we approved
of Czarist Russia with its illiteracy and
abject, grinding poverty. As I read
history, the Russian experiment in
socialism is scarcely more radical, under
modern conditions, than the Declaration
of Independence was in the days of
George III.
I realize that it is not popular even
to compare Russia with ourselves, and
yet it is necessary to get our ideas
straight. When I hear the unbridled
and intemperate attacks upon Russia by
some of our own people, I cannot help
but be troubled. If these people, who
profess such profound love and faith for
our American system, are sincere in this
faith, then why are they so afraid of
Russia? I have a feeling that the real
reason for their hate and distrust is
their lack of faith in our own system.
I believe firmly in the superiority of
our democratic capitalistic system, and
I desire to preserve it. But we should
remember that capitalism is not divine
and inviolable. It was not handed down
to us by the Almighty; and to question
it, or test it, is neither sacrilegious nor
treasonable. We have capitalism, and
we can defend it, because it has by all
standards of decency provided better
conditions for more people than any
other system on earth. It is of value to
us, and is defensible, only so long as it
maintains that record.
The highly emotional attacks upon
communism and Russia by some of our
public orators is an indication of the
weakness of their faith in our system.
We must demonstrate the superiority of
individual initiative under capitalism by
our results, by the provision of a superior
way of life, not by the violence of our
oratory.
Russia is a great and powerful nation.
She can become either a good friend and
customer, exerting her influence for
peace and stability, or she can become an
enemy using every opportunity to thwart
us. The Russia of today is a product of
a history less fortunate than ours. I do
not believe the Soviets desire to
domi¬nate the world as the Germans do. They
have given no evidence that they believe
they are supermen. Russia, like
America, is a nation of many races, and I
can see no real reason why we cannot get
along peaceably.
If this is sound reasoning, then we
should make up our minds as to our basic
attitude and stop the irritating and
confusing practice of condemnation on the
one hand and praise on the other. Our
policy should be one of respect and
consideration for a valiant Ally in peace as
well as in war, at least until some
compelling reason to alter our views
intervenes.
Another myth that confuses our
attitude toward the other nations is the
often repeated statement that "we have always
been a Santa Claus to the world." The
more selfish among us call us "Uncle
Sap." Thft implication from these
statements is that we are soft-headed,
starry- eyed idealists who know nothing of the
realities of this hard-fisted world. It
would take too much time to explore
fully this thoroughly false prejudice.
Its plausibility and the evil of it arise
from the confusion of two different ideas.
The idea of charity, in regard to which
we have been and should continue to be

Add tags for American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security

Post a Comment for American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security